What if...

... the scene changes as thus imagined (a continuation of yesterday's post on cricket)?Now Sachin has come out and spoken his mind. Ditto BCCI (to some extent, if you consider it to have any mind in the first place). Even Mike Procter has added his two bit. The media is in a frenzy - and much like the cricket-loving public. I almost would say that it's stoking the fire! With all the leading and loaded questions. Everyone seems to be screaming. (And that very much includes me).

So, Mike Procter though says he stands by his decision and it wasn't based on just the word of the Aussies, what was THE evidence by which he decided to punish Bhajji? It's a mystery. A 2-million dollar BCCI fine question I guess. Since Sachin has said he COMPLETELY backs Harbhajan it cannot be then Sachin's prevaricatoins that tilted the balance. I hope Mike Procter produces this YET invisible evidence at least in his lifetime. May be he requires Michael Clarke's help to invent some!

But what if this entire scenario changes? What if ICC accedes to BCCI and Indian players' protests and withdraws/annuls the ban? What if it has to withdraw the ban based on 'lack of conclusive evidence'? What if MIke Procter's made to eat his own words?

Will the ICC act against Mike Procter and say he was wrong in penalising Bhajji and exclude him forever from officiating as a match referee? Will the ICC show that it has the balls to act against non-Asian umpires as it has acted in the past against Asian umpires (based on Ricky Ponting's report incidentally Hariharan of India was removed from the Elite Panel)? Will the Australian players (Symonds and Ponting and Michael Clarke) be 'punished' for making an issue and for 'lying' with the intent to cause stress to the opponents? OR, will BCCI walk out of ICC and create a new cricket council with the support of other Asian nations?

I'm pretty excited with the turn of events. But not very happy with my yesterday's rant - though not regretting it!